Innocent until proven guilty (iupg): adversary resistant and false positive resistant deep learning models

ABSTRACT

Techniques for providing innocent until proven guilty (IUPG) solutions for building and using adversary resistant and false positive resistant deep learning models are disclosed. In some embodiments, a system, process, and/or computer program product includes storing a set comprising one or more innocent until proven guilty (IUPG) models for static analysis of a sample; performing a static analysis of content associated with the sample, wherein performing the static analysis includes using at least one stored IUPG model; and determining that the sample is malicious based at least in part on the static analysis of the content associated with the sample, and in response to determining that the sample is malicious, performing an action based on a security policy.

CROSS REFERENCE TO OTHER APPLICATIONS

This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent ApplicationNo. 63/034,843 entitled INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY (IUPG): BUILDINGADVERSARY RESISTANT AND FALSE POSITIVE RESISTANT DEEP LEARNING MODELSfiled Jun. 4, 2020, which is incorporated herein by reference for allpurposes.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Malware is a general term commonly used to refer to malicious software(e.g., including a variety of hostile, intrusive, and/or otherwiseunwanted software). Malware can be in the form of code, scripts, activecontent, and/or other software. Example uses of malware includedisrupting computer and/or network operations, stealing proprietaryinformation (e.g., confidential information, such as identity,financial, and/or intellectual property related information), and/orgaining access to private/proprietary computer systems and/or computernetworks. Unfortunately, as techniques are developed to help detect andmitigate malware, nefarious authors find ways to circumvent suchefforts. Accordingly, there is an ongoing need for improvements totechniques for identifying and mitigating malware.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Various embodiments of the invention are disclosed in the followingdetailed description and the accompanying drawings.

FIG. 1 illustrates an example of an environment in which maliciousapplications (“malware”) are detected and prevented from causing harm.

FIG. 2A illustrates an embodiment of a data appliance.

FIG. 2B is a functional diagram of logical components of an embodimentof a data appliance.

FIG. 3 illustrates an example of logical components that can be includedin a system for analyzing samples.

FIG. 4 illustrates portions of an example embodiment of a threat engine.

FIG. 5A is a block diagram of IUPG components augmented on an abstractnetwork

in accordance with some embodiments.

FIG. 5B illustrates an example of using an IUPG network in accordancewith some embodiments.

FIG. 5C illustrates the desired forces for an on-target and anoff-target sample.

FIG. 6 illustrates a function

used for (A) MNIST and Fashion MNIST, (B) JS, and (C) URLs in accordancewith some embodiments.

FIG. 7A illustrates Table 1 that includes a malicious JS classificationtest set μ±SEM FNR over all non-benign classes.

FIG. 7B illustrates Table 2 that includes an image classificationno-noise test set μ±SEM error percentages.

FIG. 7C illustrates Table 3 that includes an image classification testset μ±SEM error percentages when the test set contains Gaussian noiseimages and models are trained without noise.

FIG. 7D illustrates Table 4 that includes a malicious URL classificationtest set FNR.

FIG. 7E illustrates Table 5 that includes a detections with 0.005% testset FPR configured thresholds organized by VTS.

FIG. 8 illustrates OOD attack simulation results.

FIG. 9 illustrates Table 6 that includes append attack simulationresults.

FIGS. 10A-10B illustrate the accuracy over correctly classified testimages versus the scaling factor of FGSM perturbations.

FIG. 11 is an example t-SNE visualization of the U vector space inaccordance with some embodiments.

FIGS. 12A-12C provide various examples of append attacks that can evadedetection by existing malware detection solutions.

FIG. 13 illustrates an IPUG framework for malware JavaScriptclassification in accordance with some embodiments.

FIG. 14 is an example of a process for performing static analysis ofsamples using innocent until proven guilty (IUPG) models for malwareclassification in accordance with some embodiments.

FIG. 15 is an example of a process for generating innocent until provenguilty (IUPG) models for malware classification in accordance with someembodiments.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as aprocess; an apparatus; a system; a composition of matter; a computerprogram product embodied on a computer readable storage medium; and/or aprocessor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions storedon and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor. In thisspecification, these implementations, or any other form that theinvention may take, may be referred to as techniques. In general, theorder of the steps of disclosed processes may be altered within thescope of the invention. Unless stated otherwise, a component such as aprocessor or a memory described as being configured to perform a taskmay be implemented as a general component that is temporarily configuredto perform the task at a given time or a specific component that ismanufactured to perform the task. As used herein, the term ‘processor’refers to one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing coresconfigured to process data, such as computer program instructions.

A detailed description of one or more embodiments of the invention isprovided below along with accompanying figures that illustrate theprinciples of the invention. The invention is described in connectionwith such embodiments, but the invention is not limited to anyembodiment. The scope of the invention is limited only by the claims andthe invention encompasses numerous alternatives, modifications, andequivalents. Numerous specific details are set forth in the followingdescription in order to provide a thorough understanding of theinvention. These details are provided for the purpose of example and theinvention may be practiced according to the claims without some or allof these specific details. For the purpose of clarity, technicalmaterial that is known in the technical fields related to the inventionhas not been described in detail so that the invention is notunnecessarily obscured.

Overview of Firewall Technology

A firewall generally protects networks from unauthorized access whilepermitting authorized communications to pass through the firewall. Afirewall is typically a device, a set of devices, or software executedon a device that provides a firewall function for network access. Forexample, a firewall can be integrated into operating systems of devices(e.g., computers, smart phones, or other types of network communicationcapable devices). A firewall can also be integrated into or executed asone or more software applications on various types of devices, such ascomputer servers, gateways, network/routing devices (e.g., networkrouters), and data appliances (e.g., security appliances or other typesof special purpose devices), and in various implementations, certainoperations can be implemented in special purpose hardware, such as anASIC or FPGA.

Firewalls typically deny or permit network transmission based on a setof rules. These sets of rules are often referred to as policies (e.g.,network policies or network security policies). For example, a firewallcan filter inbound traffic by applying a set of rules or policies toprevent unwanted outside traffic from reaching protected devices. Afirewall can also filter outbound traffic by applying a set of rules orpolicies (e.g., allow, block, monitor, notify or log, and/or otheractions can be specified in firewall rules or firewall policies, whichcan be triggered based on various criteria, such as are describedherein). A firewall can also filter local network (e.g., intranet)traffic by similarly applying a set of rules or policies.

Security devices (e.g., security appliances, security gateways, securityservices, and/or other security devices) can include various securityfunctions (e.g., firewall, anti-malware, intrusion prevention/detection,Data Loss Prevention (DLP), and/or other security functions), networkingfunctions (e.g., routing, Quality of Service (QoS), workload balancingof network related resources, and/or other networking functions), and/orother functions. For example, routing functions can be based on sourceinformation (e.g., IP address and port), destination information (e.g.,IP address and port), and protocol information.

A basic packet filtering firewall filters network communication trafficby inspecting individual packets transmitted over a network (e.g.,packet filtering firewalls or first generation firewalls, which arestateless packet filtering firewalls). Stateless packet filteringfirewalls typically inspect the individual packets themselves and applyrules based on the inspected packets (e.g., using a combination of apacket's source and destination address information, protocolinformation, and a port number).

Application firewalls can also perform application layer filtering(e.g., application layer filtering firewalls or second generationfirewalls, which work on the application level of the TCP/IP stack).Application layer filtering firewalls or application firewalls cangenerally identify certain applications and protocols (e.g., webbrowsing using HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP), a Domain Name System(DNS) request, a file transfer using File Transfer Protocol (FTP), andvarious other types of applications and other protocols, such as Telnet,DHCP, TCP, UDP, and TFTP (GSS)). For example, application firewalls canblock unauthorized protocols that attempt to communicate over a standardport (e.g., an unauthorized/out of policy protocol attempting to sneakthrough by using a non-standard port for that protocol can generally beidentified using application firewalls).

Stateful firewalls can also perform state-based packet inspection inwhich each packet is examined within the context of a series of packetsassociated with that network transmission's flow of packets. Thisfirewall technique is generally referred to as a stateful packetinspection as it maintains records of all connections passing throughthe firewall and is able to determine whether a packet is the start of anew connection, a part of an existing connection, or is an invalidpacket. For example, the state of a connection can itself be one of thecriteria that triggers a rule within a policy.

Advanced or next generation firewalls can perform stateless and statefulpacket filtering and application layer filtering as discussed above.Next generation firewalls can also perform additional firewalltechniques. For example, certain newer firewalls sometimes referred toas advanced or next generation firewalls can also identify users andcontent (e.g., next generation firewalls). In particular, certain nextgeneration firewalls are expanding the list of applications that thesefirewalls can automatically identify to thousands of applications.Examples of such next generation firewalls are commercially availablefrom Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (e.g., Palo Alto Networks' PA Seriesfirewalls). For example, Palo Alto Networks' next generation firewallsenable enterprises to identify and control applications, users, andcontent—not just ports, IP addresses, and packets—using variousidentification technologies, such as the following: APP-ID for accurateapplication identification, User-ID for user identification (e.g., byuser or user group), and Content-ID for real-time content scanning(e.g., controlling web surfing and limiting data and file transfers).These identification technologies allow enterprises to securely enableapplication usage using business-relevant concepts, instead of followingthe traditional approach offered by traditional port-blocking firewalls.Also, special purpose hardware for next generation firewalls(implemented, for example, as dedicated appliances) generally provideshigher performance levels for application inspection than softwareexecuted on general purpose hardware (e.g., such as security appliancesprovided by Palo Alto Networks, Inc., which use dedicated, functionspecific processing that is tightly integrated with a single-passsoftware engine to maximize network throughput while minimizinglatency).

Advanced or next generation firewalls can also be implemented usingvirtualized firewalls. Examples of such next generation firewalls arecommercially available from Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (e.g., Palo AltoNetworks' VM Series firewalls, which support various commercialvirtualized environments, including, for example, VMware® ESXi™ andNSX™, Citrix® Netscaler SDX™, KVM/OpenStack (Centos/RHEL, Ubuntu®), andAmazon Web Services (AWS)). For example, virtualized firewalls cansupport similar or the exact same next-generation firewall and advancedthreat prevention features available in physical form factor appliances,allowing enterprises to safely enable applications flowing into, andacross their private, public, and hybrid cloud computing environments.Automation features such as VM monitoring, dynamic address groups, and aREST-based API allow enterprises to proactively monitor VM changesdynamically feeding that context into security policies, therebyeliminating the policy lag that may occur when VMs change.

Example Environment

FIG. 1 illustrates an example of an environment in which maliciousapplications (“malware”) are detected and prevented from causing harm.As will be described in more detail below, malware classifications(e.g., as made by security platform 122) can be variously shared and/orrefined among various entities included in the environment shown inFIG. 1. And, using techniques described herein, devices, such asendpoint client devices 104-110, can be protected from such malware.

The term “application” is used throughout the Specification tocollectively refer to programs, bundles of programs, manifests,packages, etc., irrespective of form/platform. An “application” (alsoreferred to herein as a “sample”) can be a standalone file (e.g., acalculator application having the filename “calculator.apk” or“calculator.exe”) and can also be an independent component of anotherapplication (e.g., a mobile advertisement SDK or library embedded withinthe calculator app).

“Malware” as used herein refers to an application that engages inbehaviors, whether clandestinely or not (and whether illegal or not), ofwhich a user does not approve/would not approve if fully informed.Examples of malware include Trojans, viruses, rootkits, spyware, hackingtools, keyloggers, etc. One example of malware is a desktop applicationthat collects and reports to a remote server the end user's location(but does not provide the user with location-based services, such as amapping service). Another example of malware is a malicious AndroidApplication Package .apk (APK) file that appears to an end user to be afree game, but stealthily sends SMS premium messages (e.g., costing $10each), running up the end user's phone bill. Another example of malwareis an Apple iOS flashlight application that stealthily collects theuser's contacts and sends those contacts to a spammer. Other forms ofmalware can also be detected/thwarted using the techniques describedherein (e.g., ransomware). Further, while feature vectors are describedherein as being generated for detecting malicious JavaScript sourcecode, techniques described herein can also be used in variousembodiments to generate feature vectors for other types of source code(e.g., HTML and/or other programming/scripting languages).

Techniques described herein can be used in conjunction with a variety ofplatforms (e.g., desktops, mobile devices, gaming platforms, embeddedsystems, etc.) and/or a variety of types of applications (e.g., Android.apk files, iOS applications, Windows PE files, Adobe Acrobat PDF files,etc.). In the example environment shown in FIG. 1, client devices104-108 are a laptop computer, a desktop computer, and a tablet(respectively) present in an enterprise network 140. Client device 110is a laptop computer present outside of enterprise network 140.

Data appliance 102 is configured to enforce policies regardingcommunications between client devices, such as client devices 104 and106, and nodes outside of enterprise network 140 (e.g., reachable viaexternal network 118). Examples of such policies include ones governingtraffic shaping, quality of service, and routing of traffic. Otherexamples of policies include security policies such as ones requiringthe scanning for threats in incoming (and/or outgoing) emailattachments, website content, files exchanged through instant messagingprograms, and/or other file transfers. In some embodiments, dataappliance 102 is also configured to enforce policies with respect totraffic that stays within enterprise network 140.

An embodiment of a data appliance is shown in FIG. 2A. The example shownis a representation of physical components that are included in dataappliance 102, in various embodiments. Specifically, data appliance 102includes a high performance multi-core Central Processing Unit (CPU) 202and Random Access Memory (RAM) 204. Data appliance 102 also includes astorage 210 (such as one or more hard disks or solid state storageunits). In various embodiments, data appliance 102 stores (whether inRAM 204, storage 210, and/or other appropriate locations) informationused in monitoring enterprise network 140 and implementing disclosedtechniques. Examples of such information include applicationidentifiers, content identifiers, user identifiers, requested URLs, IPaddress mappings, policy and other configuration information,signatures, hostname/URL categorization information, malware profiles,and machine learning models. Data appliance 102 can also include one ormore optional hardware accelerators. For example, data appliance 102 caninclude a cryptographic engine 206 configured to perform encryption anddecryption operations, and one or more Field Programmable Gate Arrays(FPGAs) 208 configured to perform matching, act as network processors,and/or perform other tasks.

Functionality described herein as being performed by data appliance 102can be provided/implemented in a variety of ways. For example, dataappliance 102 can be a dedicated device or set of devices. Thefunctionality provided by data appliance 102 can also be integrated intoor executed as software on a general purpose computer, a computerserver, a gateway, and/or a network/routing device. In some embodiments,at least some services described as being provided by data appliance 102are instead (or in addition) provided to a client device (e.g., clientdevice 104 or client device 110) by software executing on the clientdevice.

Whenever data appliance 102 is described as performing a task, a singlecomponent, a subset of components, or all components of data appliance102 may cooperate to perform the task. Similarly, whenever a componentof data appliance 102 is described as performing a task, a subcomponentmay perform the task and/or the component may perform the task inconjunction with other components. In various embodiments, portions ofdata appliance 102 are provided by one or more third parties. Dependingon factors such as the amount of computing resources available to dataappliance 102, various logical components and/or features of dataappliance 102 may be omitted and the techniques described herein adaptedaccordingly. Similarly, additional logical components/features can beincluded in embodiments of data appliance 102 as applicable. One exampleof a component included in data appliance 102 in various embodiments isan application identification engine which is configured to identify anapplication (e.g., using various application signatures for identifyingapplications based on packet flow analysis). For example, theapplication identification engine can determine what type of traffic asession involves, such as Web Browsing—Social Networking; WebBrowsing—News; SSH; and so on.

FIG. 2B is a functional diagram of logical components of an embodimentof a data appliance. The example shown is a representation of logicalcomponents that can be included in data appliance 102 in variousembodiments. Unless otherwise specified, various logical components ofdata appliance 102 are generally implementable in a variety of ways,including as a set of one or more scripts (e.g., written in Java,python, etc., as applicable).

As shown, data appliance 102 comprises a firewall, and includes amanagement plane 232 and a data plane 234. The management plane isresponsible for managing user interactions, such as by providing a userinterface for configuring policies and viewing log data. The data planeis responsible for managing data, such as by performing packetprocessing and session handling.

Network processor 236 is configured to receive packets from clientdevices, such as client device 108, and provide them to data plane 234for processing. Whenever flow module 238 identifies packets as beingpart of a new session, it creates a new session flow. Subsequent packetswill be identified as belonging to the session based on a flow lookup.If applicable, SSL decryption is applied by SSL decryption engine 240.Otherwise, processing by SSL decryption engine 240 is omitted.Decryption engine 240 can help data appliance 102 inspect and controlSSL/TLS and SSH encrypted traffic, and thus help to stop threats thatmight otherwise remain hidden in encrypted traffic. Decryption engine240 can also help prevent sensitive content from leaving enterprisenetwork 140. Decryption can be controlled (e.g., enabled, or disabled)selectively based on parameters such as: URL category, traffic source,traffic destination, user, user group, and port. In addition todecryption policies (e.g., that specify which sessions to decrypt),decryption profiles can be assigned to control various options forsessions controlled by the policy. For example, the use of specificcipher suites and encryption protocol versions can be required.

Application identification (APP-ID) engine 242 is configured todetermine what type of traffic a session involves. As one example,application identification engine 242 can recognize a GET request inreceived data and conclude that the session requires an HTTP decoder. Insome cases, e.g., a web browsing session, the identified application canchange, and such changes will be noted by data appliance 102. Forexample, a user may initially browse to a corporate Wiki (classifiedbased on the URL visited as “Web Browsing—Productivity”) and thensubsequently browse to a social networking site (classified based on theURL visited as “Web Browsing—Social Networking”). Different types ofprotocols have corresponding decoders.

Based on the determination made by application identification engine242, the packets are sent, by threat engine 244, to an appropriatedecoder configured to assemble packets (which may be received out oforder) into the correct order, perform tokenization (e.g., tokenizationis further described below), and extract out information. Threat engine244 also performs signature matching to determine what should happen tothe packet. As needed, SSL encryption engine 246 can re-encryptdecrypted data. Packets are forwarded using a forward module 248 fortransmission (e.g., to a destination).

As also shown in FIG. 2B, policies 252 are received and stored inmanagement plane 232. Policies can include one or more rules, which canbe specified using domain and/or host/server names, and rules can applyone or more signatures or other matching criteria or heuristics, such asfor security policy enforcement for subscriber/IP flows based on variousextracted parameters/information from monitored session traffic flows.An interface (I/F) communicator 250 is provided for managementcommunications (e.g., via (REST) APIs, messages, or network protocolcommunications or other communication mechanisms).

Example Security Platform

Returning to FIG. 1, suppose a malicious individual (using system 120)has created malware 130. The malicious individual hopes that a clientdevice, such as client device 104, will execute a copy of malware 130,compromising the client device, and, e.g., causing the client device tobecome a bot in a botnet. The compromised client device can then beinstructed to perform tasks (e.g., cryptocurrency mining, orparticipating in denial of service attacks) and to report information toan external entity, such as command and control (C&C) server 150, aswell as to receive instructions from C&C server 150, as applicable.

Suppose data appliance 102 has intercepted an email sent (e.g., bysystem 120) to a user, “Alice,” who operates client device 104. A copyof malware 130 has been attached by system 120 to the message. As analternate, but similar scenario, data appliance 102 could intercept anattempted download by client device 104 of malware 130 (e.g., from awebsite). In either scenario, data appliance 102 determines whether asignature for the file (e.g., the email attachment or web site downloadof malware 130) is present on data appliance 102. A signature, ifpresent, can indicate that a file is known to be safe (e.g., iswhitelisted), and can also indicate that the file is known to bemalicious (e.g., is blacklisted).

In various embodiments, data appliance 102 is configured to work incooperation with security platform 122. As one example, securityplatform 122 can provide to data appliance 102 a set of signatures ofknown-malicious files (e.g., as part of a subscription). If a signaturefor malware 130 is included in the set (e.g., an MD5 hash of malware130), data appliance 102 can prevent the transmission of malware 130 toclient device 104 accordingly (e.g., by detecting that an MD5 hash ofthe email attachment sent to client device 104 matches the MD5 hash ofmalware 130). Security platform 122 can also provide to data appliance102 a list of known malicious domains and/or IP addresses, allowing dataappliance 102 to block traffic between enterprise network 140 and C&Cserver 150 (e.g., where C&C server 150 is known to be malicious). Thelist of malicious domains (and/or IP addresses) can also help dataappliance 102 determine when one of its nodes has been compromised. Forexample, if client device 104 attempts to contact C&C server 150, suchattempt is a strong indicator that client 104 has been compromised bymalware (and remedial actions should be taken accordingly, such asquarantining client device 104 from communicating with other nodeswithin enterprise network 140). As will be described in more detailbelow, security platform 122 can also provide other types of informationto data appliance 102 (e.g., as part of a subscription) such as a set ofmachine learning models usable by data appliance 102 to perform inlineanalysis of files.

A variety of actions can be taken by data appliance 102 if no signaturefor an attachment is found, in various embodiments. As a first example,data appliance 102 can fail-safe, by blocking transmission of anyattachments not whitelisted as benign (e.g., not matching signatures ofknown good files). A drawback of this approach is that there may be manylegitimate attachments unnecessarily blocked as potential malware whenthey are in fact benign. As a second example, data appliance 102 canfail-danger, by allowing transmission of any attachments not blacklistedas malicious (e.g., not matching signatures of known bad files). Adrawback of this approach is that newly created malware (previouslyunseen by platform 122) will not be prevented from causing harm.

As a third example, data appliance 102 can be configured to provide thefile (e.g., malware 130) to security platform 122 for static/dynamicanalysis, to determine whether it is malicious and/or to otherwiseclassify it. A variety of actions can be taken by data appliance 102while analysis by security platform 122 of the attachment (for which asignature is not already present) is performed. As a first example, dataappliance 102 can prevent the email (and attachment) from beingdelivered to Alice until a response is received from security platform122. Assuming platform 122 takes approximately 15 minutes to thoroughlyanalyze a sample, this means that the incoming message to Alice will bedelayed by 15 minutes. Since, in this example, the attachment ismalicious, such a delay will not impact Alice negatively. In analternate example, suppose someone has sent Alice a time sensitivemessage with a benign attachment for which a signature is also notpresent. Delaying delivery of the message to Alice by 15 minutes willlikely be viewed (e.g., by Alice) as unacceptable. As will be describedin more detail below, an alternate approach is to perform at least somereal-time analysis on the attachment on data appliance 102 (e.g., whileawaiting a verdict from platform 122). If data appliance 102 canindependently determine whether the attachment is malicious or benign,it can take an initial action (e.g., block or allow delivery to Alice),and can adjust/take additional actions once a verdict is received fromsecurity platform 122, as applicable.

Security platform 122 stores copies of received samples in storage 142and analysis is commenced (or scheduled, as applicable). One example ofstorage 142 is an Apache Hadoop Cluster (HDFS). Results of analysis (andadditional information pertaining to the applications) are stored indatabase 146. In the event an application is determined to be malicious,data appliances can be configured to automatically block the filedownload based on the analysis result. Further, a signature can begenerated for the malware and distributed (e.g., to data appliances suchas data appliances 102, 136, and 148) to automatically block future filetransfer requests to download the file determined to be malicious.

In various embodiments, security platform 122 comprises one or morededicated commercially available hardware servers (e.g., havingmulti-core processor(s), 32G+ of RAM, gigabit network interfaceadaptor(s), and hard drive(s)) running typical server-class operatingsystems (e.g., Linux). Security platform 122 can be implemented across ascalable infrastructure comprising multiple such servers, solid statedrives, and/or other applicable high-performance hardware. Securityplatform 122 can comprise several distributed components, includingcomponents provided by one or more third parties. For example, portionsor all of security platform 122 can be implemented using the AmazonElastic Compute Cloud (EC2) and/or Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3).Further, as with data appliance 102, whenever security platform 122 isreferred to as performing a task, such as storing data or processingdata, it is to be understood that a sub-component or multiplesub-components of security platform 122 (whether individually or incooperation with third party components) may cooperate to perform thattask. As one example, security platform 122 can optionally performstatic/dynamic analysis in cooperation with one or more virtual machine(VM) servers, such as VM server 124.

An example of a virtual machine server is a physical machine comprisingcommercially available server-class hardware (e.g., a multi-coreprocessor, 32+ Gigabytes of RAM, and one or more Gigabit networkinterface adapters) that runs commercially available virtualizationsoftware, such as VMware ESXi, Citrix XenServer, or Microsoft Hyper-V.In some embodiments, the virtual machine server is omitted. Further, avirtual machine server may be under the control of the same entity thatadministers security platform 122 but may also be provided by a thirdparty. As one example, the virtual machine server can rely on EC2, withthe remainder portions of security platform 122 provided by dedicatedhardware owned by and under the control of the operator of securityplatform 122. VM server 124 is configured to provide one or more virtualmachines 126-128 for emulating client devices. The virtual machines canexecute a variety of operating systems and/or versions thereof. Observedbehaviors resulting from executing applications in the virtual machinesare logged and analyzed (e.g., for indications that the application ismalicious). In some embodiments, log analysis is performed by the VMserver (e.g., VM server 124). In other embodiments, analysis isperformed at least in part by other components of security platform 122,such as a coordinator 144.

In various embodiments, security platform 122 makes available results ofits analysis of samples via a list of signatures (and/or otheridentifiers) to data appliance 102 as part of a subscription. Forexample, security platform 122 can periodically send a content packagethat identifies malware apps (e.g., daily, hourly, or some otherinterval, and/or based on an event configured by one or more policies).An example content package includes a listing of identified malwareapps, with information such as a package name, a hash value for uniquelyidentifying the app, and a malware name (and/or malware family name) foreach identified malware app. The subscription can cover the analysis ofjust those files intercepted by data appliance 102 and sent to securityplatform 122 by data appliance 102, and can also cover signatures of allmalware known to security platform 122 (or subsets thereof, such as justmobile malware but not other forms of malware (e.g., PDF malware)). Aswill be described in more detail below, platform 122 can also makeavailable other types of information, such as machine learning models(e.g., based on feature vectors) that can help data appliance 102 detectmalware (e.g., through techniques other than hash-based signaturematching).

In various embodiments, security platform 122 is configured to providesecurity services to a variety of entities in addition to (or, asapplicable, instead of) an operator of data appliance 102. For example,other enterprises, having their own respective enterprise networks 114and 116, and their own respective data appliances 136 and 148, cancontract with the operator of security platform 122. Other types ofentities can also make use of the services of security platform 122. Forexample, an Internet Service Provider (ISP) providing Internet serviceto client device 110 can contract with security platform 122 to analyzeapplications which client device 110 attempts to download. As anotherexample, the owner of client device 110 can install software on clientdevice 110 that communicates with security platform 122 (e.g., toreceive content packages from security platform 122, use the receivedcontent packages to check attachments in accordance with techniquesdescribed herein, and transmit applications to security platform 122 foranalysis).

Analyzing Samples Using Static/Dynamic Analysis

FIG. 3 illustrates an example of logical components that can be includedin a system for analyzing samples. Analysis system 300 can beimplemented using a single device. For example, the functionality ofanalysis system 300 can be implemented in a malware analysis module 112incorporated into data appliance 102. Analysis system 300 can also beimplemented, collectively, across multiple distinct devices. Forexample, the functionality of analysis system 300 can be provided bysecurity platform 122.

In various embodiments, analysis system 300 makes use of lists,databases, or other collections of known safe content and/or known badcontent (collectively shown in FIG. 3 as collection 314). Collection 314can be obtained in a variety of ways, including via a subscriptionservice (e.g., provided by a third party) and/or as a result of otherprocessing (e.g., performed by data appliance 102 and/or securityplatform 122). Examples of information included in collection 314 are:URLs, domain names, and/or IP addresses of known malicious servers;URLs, domain names, and/or IP addresses of known safe servers; URLs,domain names, and/or IP addresses of known command and control (C&C)domains; signatures, hashes, and/or other identifiers of known maliciousapplications; signatures, hashes, and/or other identifiers of known safeapplications; signatures, hashes, and/or other identifiers of knownmalicious files (e.g., Android exploit files); signatures, hashes,and/or other identifiers of known safe libraries; and signatures,hashes, and/or other identifiers of known malicious libraries.

Ingestion

In various embodiments, when a new sample is received for analysis(e.g., an existing signature associated with the sample is not presentin analysis system 300), it is added to queue 302. As shown in FIG. 3,malware 130 is received by system 300 and added to queue 302.

Static Analysis

Coordinator 304 monitors queue 302, and as resources (e.g., a staticanalysis worker) become available, coordinator 304 fetches a sample fromqueue 302 for processing (e.g., fetches a copy of malware 130). Inparticular, coordinator 304 first provides the sample to static analysisengine 306 for static analysis. In some embodiments, one or more staticanalysis engines are included within analysis system 300, where analysissystem 300 is a single device. In other embodiments, static analysis isperformed by a separate static analysis server that includes a pluralityof workers (i.e., a plurality of instances of static analysis engine306).

The static analysis engine obtains general information about the sampleand includes it (along with heuristic and other information, asapplicable) in a static analysis report 308. The report can be createdby the static analysis engine, or by coordinator 304 (or by anotherappropriate component) which can be configured to receive theinformation from static analysis engine 306. In some embodiments, thecollected information is stored in a database record for the sample(e.g., in database 316), instead of or in addition to a separate staticanalysis report 308 being created (i.e., portions of the database recordform the report 308). In some embodiments, the static analysis enginealso forms a verdict with respect to the application (e.g., “safe,”“suspicious,” or “malicious”). As one example, the verdict can be“malicious” if even one “malicious” static feature is present in theapplication (e.g., the application includes a hard link to a knownmalicious domain). As another example, points can be assigned to each ofthe features (e.g., based on severity if found; based on how reliablethe feature is for predicting malice; etc.) and a verdict can beassigned by static analysis engine 306 (or coordinator 304, ifapplicable) based on the number of points associated with the staticanalysis results.

Dynamic Analysis

Once static analysis is completed, coordinator 304 locates an availabledynamic analysis engine 310 to perform dynamic analysis on theapplication. As with static analysis engine 306, analysis system 300 caninclude one or more dynamic analysis engines directly. In otherembodiments, dynamic analysis is performed by a separate dynamicanalysis server that includes a plurality of workers (i.e., a pluralityof instances of dynamic analysis engine 310).

Each dynamic analysis worker manages a virtual machine instance. In someembodiments, results of static analysis (e.g., performed by staticanalysis engine 306), whether in report form (308) and/or as stored indatabase 316, or otherwise stored, are provided as input to dynamicanalysis engine 310. For example, the static report information can beused to help select/customize the virtual machine instance used bydynamic analysis engine 310 (e.g., Microsoft Windows 7 SP 2 vs.Microsoft Windows 10 Enterprise, or iOS 11.0 vs. iOS 12.0). Wheremultiple virtual machine instances are executed at the same time, asingle dynamic analysis engine can manage all of the instances, ormultiple dynamic analysis engines can be used (e.g., with each managingits own virtual machine instance), as applicable. As will be explainedin more detail below, during the dynamic portion of the analysis,actions taken by the application (including network activity) areanalyzed.

In various embodiments, static analysis of a sample is omitted or isperformed by a separate entity, as applicable. As one example,traditional static and/or dynamic analysis may be performed on files bya first entity. Once it is determined (e.g., by the first entity) that agiven file is malicious, the file can be provided to a second entity(e.g., the operator of security platform 122) specifically foradditional analysis with respect to the malware's use of networkactivity (e.g., by a dynamic analysis engine 310).

The environment used by analysis system 300 is instrumented/hooked suchthat behaviors observed while the application is executing are logged asthey occur (e.g., using a customized kernel that supports hooking andlogcat). Network traffic associated with the emulator is also captured(e.g., using pcap). The log/network data can be stored as a temporaryfile on analysis system 300, and can also be stored more permanently(e.g., using HDFS or another appropriate storage technology orcombinations of technology, such as MongoDB). The dynamic analysisengine (or another appropriate component) can compare the connectionsmade by the sample to lists of domains, IP addresses, etc. (314) anddetermine whether the sample has communicated (or attempted tocommunicate) with malicious entities.

As with the static analysis engine, the dynamic analysis engine storesthe results of its analysis in database 316 in the record associatedwith the application being tested (and/or includes the results in report312 as applicable). In some embodiments, the dynamic analysis enginealso forms a verdict with respect to the application (e.g., “safe,”“suspicious,” or “malicious”). As one example, the verdict can be“malicious” if even one “malicious” action is taken by the application(e.g., an attempt to contact a known malicious domain is made, or anattempt to exfiltrate sensitive information is observed). As anotherexample, points can be assigned to actions taken (e.g., based onseverity if found; based on how reliable the action is for predictingmalice; etc.) and a verdict can be assigned by dynamic analysis engine310 (or coordinator 304, if applicable) based on the number of pointsassociated with the dynamic analysis results. In some embodiments, afinal verdict associated with the sample is made based on a combinationof report 308 and report 312 (e.g., by coordinator 304).

Additional Detail on the Threat Engine

In various embodiments, data appliance 102 includes a threat engine 244.The threat engine incorporates both protocol decoding and threatsignature matching during a respective decoder stage and pattern matchstage. Results of the two stages are merged by a detector stage.

When data appliance 102 receives a packet, data appliance 102 performs asession match to determine to which session the packet belongs (allowingdata appliance 102 to support concurrent sessions). Each session has asession state which implicates a particular protocol decoder (e.g., aweb browsing decoder, an FTP decoder, or an SMTP decoder). When a fileis transmitted as part of a session, the applicable protocol decoder canmake use of an appropriate file-specific decoder (e.g., a PE filedecoder, a JavaScript decoder, or a PDF decoder).

Portions of an example embodiment of threat engine 244 are shown in FIG.4. In one embodiment, for a given session, decoder 402 walks the trafficbyte stream, following the corresponding protocol and marking contexts.One example of a context is an end-of-file context (e.g., encountering</script> while processing a JavaScript file). Decoder 402 can mark theend-of-file context in the packet, which can then be used to triggerexecution of the appropriate model using the file's observed features.In some cases (e.g., FTP traffic), explicit protocol-level tags may notbe present for decoder 402 to identify/mark context with. In anotherembodiment, decoder component 402 is configured to determine a file typeassociated with each of the files in sample(s) 404 (e.g., malwaresamples can include various source code content and/or other types ofcontent for malware analysis, such as JS code, HTML code, and/or otherprogramming/scripting languages, as well as other structured text suchas URLs or unstructured content such as images, etc.) and can decode thefiles for performing static analysis using an IUPG model(s) as describedfurther below. As will also be described in more detail below, invarious embodiments, decoder 402 can use other information (e.g., filesize as reported in a header) to determine when feature extraction of afile should end (e.g., the overlay section begins) and execution usingan appropriate model should be commenced (e.g., as further describedbelow, decoder 402 can determine a file type associated with sample(s)404, and then select an appropriate IUPG model for that type of sourcecode associated with that file type, such as a JS IUPG model for JSfiles, an HTML IUPG model for HTML files, etc., and analyzer 406 canperform static analysis of the sample using the appropriate IUPGmodel(s)).

Threat engine 244 also includes an analyzer component 406 for performingstatic analysis of sample(s) 404 using a selected IUPG model(s) asfurther described below. A detector component 408 (e.g., using targetfeature vectors of the selected IUPG model(s)) determines whether toclassify each of the analyzed sample(s) 404 as malicious or benign(e.g., based on a threshold score) as will also be further describedbelow. As one example, analyzer(s) 406 and detector 408 can beimplemented by data appliance 102 and/or by a security agent/softwareexecuted on client 110 (e.g., and as also similarly shown in FIG. 1, byanalyzer & detector 154 of security platform 122) using the disclosedtechniques for IUPG models applied to malware classification based on astatic analysis of source code samples. Detector 408 processes outputsprovided by decoder 402 and analyzer(s) 406 to take various responsiveactions (e.g., based on a security policy/rule(s)).

Introduction to Innocent Until Proven Guilty (IUPG): Building AdversaryResistant and False Positive Resistant Deep Learning Models

Categorical Cross-Entropy (CCE) loss is a standard supervised lossfunction used to train a variety of Deep Neural Network (DNN)classifiers. CCE produces a purely discriminative model with no embeddedmeans to infer out-of-distribution (OOD) content or effectively utilizeclasses that do not possess uniquely identifiable structures. Thedisclosed techniques for providing an Innocent Until Proven Guilty(IUPG) framework provide alternative architectural components and ahybrid discriminative and generative loss function for training DNNs toclassify mutually exclusive classes. IUPG includes learning a library ofinputs within the original input space that—together with thenetwork—prototype uniquely identifiable subsets of the input space. Thenetwork learns to map the input space to an output vector space in whichprototypes and members of the relevant input subset map exclusively to acommon point in the output vector space. The distances between noise (orany class of data lacking a prototypical description) and all prototypesin the output vector space are maximized in training. We call any suchclasses “off-target” while target classes have one or more assignedprototypes. Off-target data helps to chisel down the extracted featuresof target classes to that which is truly class-exclusive as opposed tocoincidental.

For example, machine learning techniques (MLT) as applied incomputer/network security has a significant challenge—it generallyshould not make mistakes. A mistake in one direction can lead to a riskyslip of malware falling through the cracks (e.g., malware being allowedto penetrate an enterprise network or to execute on a computing entity(such as a server, computing endpoint, etc.)). A mistake in the otherdirection causes your security solution to block, for example, benigntraffic or executables on a computing entity, which is also expensivefor cybersecurity companies and a huge headache for users. In general,the amount of good (benign) traffic vastly outnumbers the amount ofmalicious traffic, thus minimizing the amount of good traffic calledmalicious (e.g., generally referred to as a false positive (FP)) istypically desired for effective and efficient security solutions.Malware authors understand this and try to disguise their malicious codeto look more like benign code. The most straightforward way toaccomplish this is what is generally known as an append attack (e.g.,also known as an injection, bundling, etc.) in which an attacker takesan (e.g., typically large) amount of benign content and injects theirmalicious content into it without compromising the functionality of themalware, such as will be further described below. Because machinelearning (ML) classifiers built with standard techniques are sensitiveto its presence, a significant portion of benign content can perturb aclassification verdict away from a positive malware verdict, sometimescausing the classifier to miss it entirely.

In the context of malware classification using the IUPG techniques, thisequates to learning inseparable features of malware clusters that definetheir maliciousness while ignoring benign content. In an exampleimplementation, during inference, each sample is scanned for theseinseparable qualities while ignoring all structure outside the class,hence the technique assumes each sample is “innocent until provenguilty”. Increasing the specificity of learned features intuitivelyincreases the network's resistance to any OOD content (e.g., noiseresistance as further described below). As a central hypothesis to thedisclosed IUPG techniques, we propose that this increased resistance toany OOD content is chiefly responsible for the desirable effects weexplore as further described below.

The disclosed IUPG techniques achieve this by learning a library ofabstracted inputs within the data's original representationthat—together with the network's layer operations—prototype subsets ofthe input space. The network learns to map the input space to an outputvector space in which prototypes and members of the relevant inputsubset map exclusively to a common point. The distances between noise(or any class of data lacking a prototypical description, which we willgenerally call “off-target”) and all prototype inputs in the outputvector space are maximized in training. The off-target samples thus helpto chisel down the extracted features of target classes to that which istruly class-exclusive as opposed to coincidental.

Increasing the specificity of learned representations of classes (whilestill balancing generalizability in the loss) naturally increases thenetwork's resistance to input noise. We hypothesize it is chiefly theembedded noise-resistance properties of IUPG networks that areresponsible for the desirable qualities we explore in this work. We usean equivalent network topology trained with CCE loss to measure baselineperformance. We will refer to this control network setup as an IUPGnetwork's CCE counterpart. In our evaluation, we (1) explore the testset classification performance of IUPG and its CCE counterpart acrossvarious cybersecurity and computer vision experimental settingsincluding different usages of noise; (2) measure both frameworks'tendency to produce false-positive (FP) responses on OOD inputs; (3)measure both frameworks' resistance to blackbox append attacks with bothstandard training and a custom adversarial training procedure weintroduce; and (4) demonstrate the applicability of existing adversariallearning techniques to IUPG.

As will be described below with respect to various embodiments, byincreasing structured class model specificity through prototype-basedlearning and unique handling of structureless classes, IUPG-trainednetworks can provide significant advantages in common real-world problemsettings, such as certain noise-based adversarial attacks incomputer/network security contexts, handling distributional shifts, andout-of-distribution classification. Because IUPG is general enough to beapplied to any architecture where categorical cross-entropy (CCE) can beused, various opportunities for combinations of IUPG with existingadversarial learning/OOD detectors present themselves which renderbetter performance than either technique used in isolation as will alsobe further described below.

We show the unique benefits of IUPG are particularly useful to malwareclassification efforts. In the context of malware classification, appendattacks can lead to risky false negatives while OOD failures can lead tocostly false positives. In summary, various novel aspects disclosedherein include, without limitation, the following: (1) presenting theIUPG framework; (2) demonstrating several benefits discussed above ofusing IUPG over CCE loss; (3) presenting a novel architecture andtraining procedure to build append attack resistant DNN malwareclassifiers; and (4) applying IUPG frameworks to effectively andefficiently detect various forms of malware (e.g., JavaScript relatedmalware, URL related malware, and/or other forms of malware can besimilarly classified and detected using the disclosed IUPG techniquesand IUPG framework as will be further described below).

As will be further described below, experiment results reveal thatappend attacks can be significantly successful against even highlyaccurate classifiers. As an example, for our deep learning JavaScript(JS) malware classifiers built with categorical cross-entropy (CCE)loss, it took just 10,000 characters of random benign content appendedonto malicious samples to successfully flip the verdict >50% of the timedespite the classifier achieving >99% accuracy on its test set. This isparticularly concerning given the extremely low cost of leveraging theattack. The adversary does not need to know any details about the victimclassifier while at the same time benign content is extremely plentifuland trivial to produce. If the adversary has access to sensitiveinformation about the victim model, such as its loss function, theappended content can be designed with model-specific techniques whichgenerally increase the success rate further.

To solve this technically challenging problem, content that is notuniquely indicative of malware should generally have a small enoughimpact on a classification mechanism such that a verdict will not beflipped to benign. At a high level, the approach we take is to encouragea network to exclusively learn and recognize uniquely identifiablepatterns of the malicious class while being explicitly robust to allother content. An important observation is that malware patterns arehighly structured and uniquely recognizable compared to the limitlesspossible benign patterns you can encounter in data. As such, an exampleinnovation of the disclosed IUPG techniques is to differentiate classeswith and without uniquely identifiable structures (e.g., patterns) intheir usage for learning. In a malware classification context, themalware class generally has uniquely identifiable structures (e.g.,referred to herein as a target class) while the benign class isinherently random (e.g., referred to herein as an off-target class). Asfurther described below, the disclosed IUPG techniques are specificallydesigned to learn uniquely identifiable structures within target classeswhile leveraging off-target classes only to chisel down therepresentations of target classes to that which is truly inseparable.This facilitates reducing the overall receptive field of a neuralnetwork, that is, the patterns of data which it is sensitive to,exclusively to malicious patterns that are clear indicators of a correctpositive verdict. If no such malicious patterns are found, only then isa benign verdict produced. This is to say, an unknown file is innocentuntil proven guilty (IUPG). This is in contrast to conventional,unconstrained learning which is typically free to recognize benignpatterns which may help minimize the loss but ultimately confer noinformation about the safety of a file as a whole. Further, wehypothesize that any benign patterns learned by a classifier are likelyjust overfitted features to facets of the circumstance training data. Itis inefficient at best to try to capture benign patterns due to the nearlimitless possible manifestations. At worst, it leads to overfittedfeatures that open the classifier up to append attack susceptibility.Worse yet, if your training, validation, and test splits are drawn fromthe same distribution (e.g., which is common practice), standard testset classification metrics will likely not illuminate the problem sincethe benign features of the classifier may still lead to good performanceon the test set. Only once the classifier is placed into the real world(e.g., where it matters) on data outside of your training distributionwill troublesome classification errors and attack vulnerability beincurred.

As will be described in more detail below, in evaluation, we use anequivalent network trained with CCE loss to measure baselineperformance—referred to herein as an IUPG network's CCE counterpart. We(1) explore the test set classification performance of IUPG and its CCEcounterpart across various cybersecurity and computer vision settingsincluding different usages of noise; (2) compare the tendency to producefalse-positive (FP) responses on OOD inputs; (3) compare the impact ofrecency bias (e.g., performance loss due to distributional shift) onclassification accuracy; (4) compare both frameworks' resistance toblackbox append attacks; and (5) demonstrate the applicability ofexisting adversarial training techniques to IUPG.

Background of Related Works

We summarize three key themes of related work that include thefollowing: (1) prototype-based learning, (2) append attacks, and (3)out-of-distribution (OOD) attacks.

Prototype-Based Learning: Among the earliest works on prototype-basedlearning is learning vector quantization (LVQ) (see, e.g., T. Kohonen,The self-organizing map. Neurocomputing, 21(1):1-6, 1998, ISSN0925-2312, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-2312(98)00030-7), whichcan be thought of as a prototype-based k-nearest neighbors algorithm. Inthe taxonomy of LVQ variants presented in D. Nova and P. A. Est'evez. Areview of learning vector quantization classifiers. Neural Comput.Appl., 25(3-4):511-524, Septemer 2014. ISSN 0941-0643. doi:10.1007/s00521-013-1535-3, this work is comparable to GLVQ (see, e.g.,A. Sato and K. Yamada, Generalized learning vector quantization. InProceedings of the 8th International Conference on Neural InformationProcessing Systems, NIPS'95, page 423-429, Cambridge, Mass., USA, 1995,MIT Press) which falls under margin maximization of the data space withEuclidean distance. IUPG, however, combines prototype learning with DNNsand makes unique use of off-target samples. Common goals ofprototype-based learning in DNNs include low-shot learning (see, e.g.,X. Liu and et al. Meta-learning based prototype-relation network forfew-shot classification, Neurocomputing, 383:224-234, 2020, ISSN0925-2312, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2019.12.034) andverdict interpretability (see, e.g., O. Li, H. Liu, C. Chen, and C.Rudin, Deep learning for case-based reasoning through prototypes: Aneural network that explains its predictions, 2018). The model in H.-M.Yang, X.-Y. Zhang, F. Yin, and C.-L. Liu. Robust classification withconvolutional prototype learning, 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on ComputerVision and Pattern Recognition, June 2018, doi: 10.1109/cvpr.2018. 00366(Yang et al.) shares several similarities with IUPG. However, prototypesin Yang et al. are defined in the output vector space of the model.These prototypes are not human interpretable and have no intuitiveinitialization. Critically, when prototypes are defined this way, weobserved frequent convergence to solutions in which multiple prototypesmerge to a common point. This is supported by results in Yang et al.which report similar or worse performance with multiple prototypes perclass. We also could not find similar work that utilizes off-targetsamples as IUPG does. This ability in particular allowed us to discoverconsiderable benefits on problems such as malware classification whereonly one class possesses a uniquely identifiable structure.

Append Attacks: Append attacks are concatenations of adversarial contentto inputs with the intent to perturb the classification result (see,e.g., R. R. Wiyatno, A. Xu, O. Dia, and A. de Berker, Adversarialexamples in modern machine learning: A review, 2019 (Wiyatno et al.)).This is of particular relevance to malware classification where benignnoise can be appended onto malware to fool the classifier despite themalicious activity remaining intact. Inversely, malicious content can beinjected into large benign files to evade detection (e.g., benignlibrary injections or also by adding more white spaces is a common formof append attacks such as using various jQuery plugins and custombundled files with website dependencies, which can cause incorrectbenign classifications by many classifiers as the classification resultscan be perturbed by such benign library/other content injections intosuch files). In what is known as whitebox attacks (see, e.g., Wiyatno etal.), the appended noise can be crafted while exploiting model details.In general, a blackbox adversarial attack assumes no knowledge of themodel and is often the only attack possible against proprietarydefenses. This work provides evidence that even the simplest appendattack varieties can pose a serious threat to highly accurate models. Tothe best of our knowledge, previous work in deep learning lacks ageneric solution for append attacks on malware.

Out-of-Distribution (OOD) Classification: It is well understood thatDNNs (save some specialized highly nonlinear options such as RBFnetworks) trained with CCE are prone to produce highly overconfidentposterior distributions for OOD inputs (see, e.g., V. Sehwag et al.,Analyzing the robustness of openworld machine learning, pages 105-116,November 2019, ISBN 978-1-4503-6833-9, doi: 10.1145/3338501.3357372).Reliably handling OOD content is a critical requirement for real-worldsystems. Orthogonally to our work, open-world frameworks often equipmodels with external detectors that aim to identify and discard OODinputs (see, e.g., J. Chen, Y. Li, X. Wu, Y. Liang, and S. Jha. Robustout-of-distribution detection for neural networks, 2020). Other workrelies on learning an external rejection function either concurrently orafter training of the classification network (see, e.g., Y. Geifman andR. El-Yaniv. Selective classification for deep neural networks, In I.Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan,and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information ProcessingSystems 30, pages 4878-4887, Curran Associates, Inc., 2017). This workdemonstrates an embedded adeptness to handle OOD content resulting fromIUPG alone.

Combining Strengths: In general, any of the techniques developed forCCE-trained DNNs to overcome whitebox attacks in recent years, such asthe many varieties of adversarial training (see, e.g., Wiyatno et al.),can be equivalently applied to IUPG-trained networks. IUPG loss can beused as a drop-in replacement for CCE within these special trainingprocedures. An example of this is provided further below in which wefind consistently greater rates of success with IUPG. Similarly, wesuggest the combination of IUPG with external OOD detectors is likely tooutperform either in isolation as will now be further described belowwith respect to various embodiments.

Overview of Techniques for Innocent Until Proven Guilty (IUPG): Buildingand Using Adversary Resistant and False Positive Resistant Deep LearningModels

Techniques for providing innocent until proven guilty (IUPG) solutionsfor building and using adversary resistant and false positive resistantdeep learning models are disclosed. In some embodiments, a system,process, and/or computer program product includes storing a setcomprising one or more innocent until proven guilty (IUPG) models forstatic analysis of a sample; performing a static analysis of contentassociated with the sample, wherein performing the static analysisincludes using at least one stored IUPG model; and determining that thesample is malicious based at least in part on the static analysis of thecontent associated with the sample, and in response to determining thatthe sample is malicious, performing an action based on a securitypolicy.

Deep Neural Network classifiers trained with the conventionalCategorical Cross-Entropy loss face problems in real-world environmentssuch as a tendency to produce overly confident posterior distributionson out-of-distribution inputs, sensitivity to adversarial noise, andlost performance due to distributional shift. We hypothesize that acentral shortcoming—an inability to effectively processout-of-distribution content within inputs—exacerbates each of thesesetbacks. In response, we propose a novel learning framework calledInnocent Until Proven Guilty which prototypes training data clusters orclasses within the input space while uniquely leveraging noise andinherently random classes to discover noise-resistant, uniquelyidentifiable features of the modeled classes. In evaluation, we leverageboth academic computer vision datasets and real world JavaScript and URLdatasets for malware classification.

Across these interdisciplinary settings, we observe favorableclassification performance on test data, decreased loss of performancedue to recency bias, decreased false-positive responses on noisesamples, and decreased vulnerability in several noise-based attacksimulations when compared to a baseline network of equal topologytrained with Categorical Cross-Entropy.

The disclosed IUPG framework demonstrates significantly decreasedvulnerability to blackbox append attacks on malware. For example, byapplying the well-known Fast-Gradient Sign Method, we show the potentialto combine our framework with existing adversarial learning techniquesand discover favorable performance by a significant margin. Ourframework is general enough for use with any network topology that couldotherwise be trained with Categorical Cross-Entropy (CCE).

Example System Embodiments of an IUPG Framework

FIG. 5A is a block diagram of IUPG components augmented on an abstractnetwork

in accordance with some embodiments. Generally, IUPG networks areencoders that map inputs and prototypes from a common input space intoan output vector space.

As a brief overview of the IUPG framework and IUPG techniques, an inputsample and a library of prototypes are processed by the network in aSiamese fashion with each forward pass. These prototypes exist in thesame input space as regular data points. For example, if you areclassifying 28×28 images, each prototype will exist as a 28×28 matrix oflearnable weights. In an example implementation, two ways of definingprototypes can be performed: (1) either directly as learnable members ofinput space; or (2) more generally as weights of a linear combination ofa basis set of training data points. The latter is especially moreconvenient when the input space is prohibitively large. Samples andprototypes are mapped to a final output vector space with a speciallylearned distance metric paired with it. IUPG learns the prototypes, theweights of the network, and the distance metric such that the outputvector space orients all inputs, such as shown in FIG. 5B using IUPGNetwork 500 as will be further described below with respect to FIG. 5A.

In the ideal mapping, structured class members and their assignedprototype(s) map uniquely to a common point(s) with a margin of spacesuch that any possible input that is not a member of the structuredclass maps somewhere else. It should be clear now that a verdict isdrawn by measuring distances of mapped inputs to all mapped prototypesin this output vector space. If a mapped sample is measured to be closeenough to a prototype, it is predicted to be a member of the class towhich that prototype was assigned. As shown in the space at 530, abackground of noise, also referred to herein as off-target data, helpsto illuminate (and capture in the prototypes) what is truly inseparableabout the target classes, such as Class 1 Prototype 532 and Class 2Prototype 534 as shown in FIG. 5B. Note that IUPG Network 500 can stillbe trained just fine without any off-target data or classes. We reportstable or increased classification performance with several publicdatasets of this variety. However, certain problems, such as malwareclassification, are a natural fit for utilizing this capacity torecognize off-target data.

IUPG loss encourages this ideal mapping by orchestrating pushing andpulling forces between samples and every prototype in the output vectorspace. The forces applied to each anchor sample are determined based onits label. FIG. 5C illustrates the desired forces for an on-target andan off-target sample. Note for an off-target sample 550 that it ispushed away from every prototype including Target 1 Prototype 552,Target 2 Prototype 554, and Target 3 Prototype 556 as shown in FIG. 5C.This is achieved by using a zero vector for its one-hot label vector.

Coming back to binary malware classification, as is mentionedpreviously, we specify several prototypes for the malicious class whiledefining the benign class as off-target. It is hopefully clear now whythis is imperative to learn the uniquely identifying patterns of malwarewhile encoding robustness to benign content. In the ideal case, theprototypes and the mapping of the network exclusively capture theinseparable features of malware families such that their activation isas strong an indicator of malware as possible and no other features leadto significant activation. This traps the adversary in a situation wherethe only path to subvert mapping to a malicious prototype is to distortor remove the piece of malware that actually does something malicious.With little activation on patterns that do not directly confermaliciousness, leveraging extra benign content will not help anadversary bypass a malware classifier. Importantly, note that formingtight and robust clusters of malware families around prototypes in theoutput vector space is simultaneously balanced with generalizability inthe loss such that orphan malware, for example, can still be reliablycaught. In our experiments, prototypes, in general, do not map to singlemalware families or malicious patterns as if the model was reduced tosimple pattern matching. Instead, the network and prototypes learn torecognize complex, high-level combinations of patterns that generalizeacross malware families yet still retain robustness to benignactivation.

Referring now to FIG. 5A, novel components of an IUPG framework 500include the input and output layers of a DNN as well as a special lossfunction as will be described below with respect to FIG. 5A. All hiddenlayer details—including the number of layers of different functionaltypes organized into any topology—can vary as needed based on problemrelevance. Consider a network,

:

→

^(z), which maps the set of vectorized inputs

to vectors in

^(z). Conventional CCE training of

includes mapping

(

) to vectors in

^(c) (where c is the number of classes). We will explain these examplenovel components of the IUPG framework by augmenting them onto anexample abstract network architecture

as will now be described below with respect to FIG. 5A.

Data Guidelines

For CCE training with c classes, it is generally necessary andsufficient to acquire labeled examples of all c classes. While IUPG canbe trained with these datasets, we find it is often useful to includeoff-target samples. For off-target samples ({right arrow over (x)},{right arrow over (y)}) we define {right arrow over (y)}={right arrowover (0)}. How to decide what data or class is “off-target” isproblem-dependent but intuitive. If training a “cat” or “not-cat”classifier, there is only one class with a uniquely identifiablestructure. “Not-cat” does not possess a prototypical description. Anylearned indicators of “not-cat” are likely just facets of thecircumstantial training data. “Not-cat” should be defined as theoff-target class while “cat” is assigned one or more prototypes.Alternatively, if training a “cat” or “dog” classifier, both classespossess uniquely identifiable structures, and an off-target class shouldbe augmented to these classes. Statistical noise is often easy tosynthesize for off-target data.

Prototypes

IUPG networks process an input and a library of ρ prototypes, P={{rightarrow over (p)}₁, . . . , {right arrow over (p)}_(p)} prototypes 504 ina Siamese fashion (see, e.g., J. Bromley et al., Signature verificationusing a “siamese” time delay neural network, International Journal ofPattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 7:25, August 1993, doi:10.1142/S0218001493000339). P is pictured as input to

506 adjacent to {right arrow over (x)} in FIG. 5A. Each {right arrowover (p)} constitutes learnable weights of the network. Each {rightarrow over (p)} learns prototypical information about a subset oftraining data such that all its members will exclusively map close to{right arrow over (p)} after processing with

. Subsets can be learned automatically, specified with class labels, orboth. One way to define each {right arrow over (p)} is as an element of

itself as shown at 502. If elements of

are prohibitively large or a large p is desired, a memory-efficientdefinition of {right arrow over (p)} is as the weight vector of a linearcombination of training inputs. Concretely, we designate static trainingsamples to form a basis set B. The elements of B are chosen throughclustering techniques to span the training distribution. We then defineeach {right arrow over (p)}∈

^(|B|). Before processing with

, we compute the dot product softmax({right arrow over (p)})·B. Underboth prototype definition varieties, the choice for ρ can be guided bydomain knowledge or discovered through hyperparameter optimizationtechniques. Domain knowledge can guide the initialization of each {rightarrow over (p)}. For example, one may wish to establish clustercenter-points as initializations that may correspond to semanticallymeaningful divisions of a class. We found cluster-based initializationsto significantly reduce required training time to convergence.

Distance Function

Vectors in

(

) are mapped to an output vector space

⊂

^(k) 510 via a fully connected layer as shown at 512 and 514. k need notbe equal to the number of classes. The intermediate representation of xin

is denoted {right arrow over (u)}_(x) while the representation of P isdenoted U_(p)={{right arrow over (u)}₁, {right arrow over (u)}₂, . . . ,{right arrow over (u)}_(p)}, depicted at 510 in FIG. 5. Measuring thedistance between {right arrow over (u)}_(x) and each {right arrow over(u)}_(j)∈U_(p) is crucial. There are many options available to definedistance P (see, e.g., S. Ontanon, An overview of distance andsimilarity functions for structured data, Artificial IntelligenceReview, February 2020, ISSN 1573-7462, doi: 10.1007/s10462-020-09821-w).We define function d_({right arrow over (α)})({right arrow over(u)}_(x),{right arrow over (u)}_(j))=Σ_(i=1) ^(k) e^(α) ^(i)|u_(x,i)−u_(j,i)|. This is L1 distance with a learned vector of weights,{right arrow over (α)}∈

^(k), 516 applied to each dimension after scaling with e^(x) to ensurenon-negativity. This function provided satisfying results such that wedid not feel the need to explore more options. We use an adjustedsigmoidal function,

$\begin{matrix}{{{\sigma^{*}(x)} = {\frac{2}{1 + e^{{- 2}x}} - 1}},} & \;\end{matrix}$

as shown at 518 to bound all distances ≥0 between [0,1). Note ahyperbolic tangent function can also achieve this. For input x, thefinal vector of distances is defined {right arrow over(D)}=[σ*(d_({right arrow over (α)})({right arrow over (u)}_(x), {rightarrow over (u)}₁)), σ*(d_({right arrow over (α)})({right arrow over(u)}_(x), {right arrow over (u)}₂)), . . . ,σ*(d_({right arrow over (α)})({right arrow over (u)}_(x), {right arrowover (u)}_(p)))] as shown at 520. Verdicts are made by thresholding thevalues in {right arrow over (D)}.

Loss Function

IUPG loss seeks to minimize the distance between samples and theirdesignated prototype in

while simultaneously maximizing the distances between samples and all oftheir non-designated prototypes. The proposed loss function in Equation1 is minimizing a summation of cross-entropy calculations between thelabel distributions of each target class and the prototype-to-classdistributions of minimum distances in {right arrow over (D)}. We willdefine loss for a single sample ({right arrow over (x)}∈

, {right arrow over (y)}∈

^(c)) where {right arrow over (y)} is one-hot encoded over c targetclasses. Assuming ≥1 target classes each with ≥1 designated prototypes,the generalized loss function for ({right arrow over (x)}, {right arrowover (y)}) is shown in Equation 1 depicted at 526 in FIG. 5A.

$\begin{matrix}{\mathcal{J} = {{- {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{c}{\gamma\; y_{i}{\log\left( {1 - {\min\left( {\left( {\overset{\rightarrow}{D} + \epsilon} \right) \odot \frac{1}{{\overset{\rightarrow}{\omega}}_{i}}} \right)}} \right)}}}} + {\left( {1 - y_{i}} \right){\log\left( {\min\left( {\left( {\overset{\rightarrow}{D} + \epsilon} \right) \odot \frac{1}{{\overset{\rightarrow}{\omega}}_{i}}} \right)} \right)}}}} & (1)\end{matrix}$

When y_(i)=1, we use γ∈

522 to scale the relative influence of the distance to prototypesdesignated to class i. Recall {right arrow over (y)}={right arrow over(0)} for off-target samples, which necessitates the y_(i)=0 termotherwise their loss would be 0 always. Conceptually, when y_(i)=1, wepenalize the distance between x and the closest prototype of class i.When y_(i)=0, we do the same with inverted distance. We add a constantε<<1 to D to avoid computing log(0).

Assignment of ρ prototypes to c target classes is specified inside the{right arrow over (ω)}_(i)∈

^(ρ) vectors. Denote the target class [1, 2, . . . , c] that prototype{right arrow over (p)} is designated to as

({right arrow over (p)}). We define each {right arrow over (ω)}_(i) asshown at 524 with {right arrow over (ω)}_(i,j)=1+ϵ if

({right arrow over (p)}_(j))=i and {right arrow over (ω)}_(i,j)=ϵotherwise. ({right arrow over (D)}+ϵ)⊙1/{right arrow over (ω)}_(i) thuslinearly shifts the values of {right arrow over (D)} for class i suchthat the distances to designated prototypes is strictly <1 while thedistances to all other prototypes is ≥1. Computing min((D+ϵ)⊙1/{rightarrow over (ω)}_(i)) then gives us the minimum distance among theprototypes designed to class i.

Training and Inference Complexity

If all weights are unchanging, U_(p) need only be computed once and thencan be reused. The time complexity of the mapping from

({right arrow over (x)})→{right arrow over (u)}_(x) is O(kz+k) which isequal to its CCE counterpart when k=c. The proceeding computation of{right arrow over (D)} is composed of dot products, application of{right arrow over (α)} and application of σ*(⋅), which scalesO(ρk²+ρk+ρ) accordingly. Assuming U_(p) is calculated prior, theprevious two operations envelop the different operations of IUPG versusits CCE counterpart during inference. Note both are highlyparallelizable and typically insignificant compared to the computationof

({right arrow over (x)}). During training, we additionally compute U_(p)anew once per training batch. This is equivalent to adding ρ samples toeach batch. Note that IUPG also increases the number of learnableweights by ρ|{right arrow over (p)}|+|{right arrow over (α)}|+z(k−c).

EXPERIMENTS

We consider malicious JavaScript (JS) and URL classification as well asMNIST (see, e.g., Yann LeCun and Corinna Cortes, MNIST handwritten digitdatabase, 2010) and Fashion MNIST (see, e.g., Han Xiao, Kashif Rasul,and Roland Vollgraf, Fashion-MNIST: a novel image dataset forbenchmarking machine learning algorithms, 2017) classification in ourexperiments. For JS, we consider both a binary generic malwareclassification problem and a multiclass malware family tagging problem.All models are implemented in TensorFlow (see, e.g., M. Abadi et al.,TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous distributedsystems, 2015; and TensorFlow open source software is available fromtensorflow.org) and are trained with the Adam optimizer (see, e.g.,Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba, Adam: A method for stochasticoptimization, 2014). A training batch size of 32 and learning rate of5×10⁻⁵ is used throughout. We use ReLU and sigmoidal activation acrossall convolutional and fully connected layers, respectively. Thesehyperparameters allow both IUPG and the CCE trained networks to convergeafter approximately the same number of batches. The sharedhyperparameters used in this work were tuned while using CCE loss—thusare biased toward CCE counterparts. For IUPG, we set k=32 throughout.When defining all {right arrow over (p)}∈

, we used K-means++ (see, e.g., David Arthur and Sergei Vassilvitskii,K-means++: The advantages of careful seeding, In Proceedings of theEighteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2007,pages 1027-1035, USA, 2007, Society for Industrial and AppliedMathematics, ISBN 9780898716245) on the training data to calculateprototype initializations. When defining all {right arrow over (p)} witha basis set, we used K-means++ to instead determine members of B. Threedifferent networks are used in place of

for our experiments. The topology of

for all settings is illustrated in FIG. 6 as described below.

FIG. 6 illustrates a function

f used for (A) MNIST and Fashion MNIST, (B) JS, and (C) URLs inaccordance with some embodiments. For (A), the model includes parallelconvolutional layers. C:128 @5×5 is a convolutional layer of 128 5×5filters. maxP@2×2 is 2×2 max pooling. FCC is a fully connectedconvolutional layer. FC:512 is a fully connected layer with 512 units.For (B), char-level and token-level input representations are processedindependently. EVL refers to an embedded vector lookup operation.seqComp refers to a sequence compression operation. globalmaxP refers toa global max pooling operation. For (C), C:128@ 11, 3×30 denotes twodifferent heights used in the filter banks: 11 for char-level input and3 for token-level input.

Image Classification

For brevity, MNIST (see, e.g., Yann LeCun and Corinna Cortes, MNISThandwritten digit database, 2010) and Fashion MNIST (see, e.g., HanXiao, Kashif Rasul, and Roland Vollgraf, Fashion-MNIST: a novel imagedataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms, 2017) are treatedmuch the same. Both datasets are broken into random 50 k-10 k-10 kTrain-Test-Val (TTV) splits. When required, we generate Gaussian noiseimages as well as images of random strokes with a Random ForestClassifier to filter out accidental true positives. Images arepreprocessed with max-min scaling and mean subtraction. When using IUPG,each {right arrow over (p)}∈

⊆

^(28×28) and we designate 1 prototype per target class.

Malicious JS and Static URL Classification

Malicious JS and static URL classifications are challenging tasks in websecurity (see, e.g., Aurore Fass, Michael Backes, and Ben Stock, Jstap:A static pre-filter for malicious javascript detection, In Proceedingsof the 35th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, ACSAC2019, pages 257-269, New York, N.Y., USA, 2019, Association forComputing Machinery; Yann LeCun and Corinna Cortes, MNIST handwrittendigit database, 2010; Doyen Sahoo, Chenghao Liu, and Steven C. H. Hoi,Malicious URL detection using machine learning: A survey, 2017). Appendattacks are particularly popular among JS malware, such as maliciousinjections to benign scripts. A simple yet critical observation ofmalware classification is that benignness is definable only insofar asthat which is not malicious. For IUPG, we define benign data as theoff-target class, that is, no prototypes are used to model it.

Benign JS was collected by crawling the top 1M domains from Tranco list(see, e.g., Victor Le Pochat, Tom van Goethem, and Wouter Joosen,Rigging research results by manipulating top websites rankings, CoRR,abs/1806.01156, 2018). In addition to Tranco's filtering, we ignoredsamples flagged by state-of-the-art commercial URL filtering services.We leveraged VirusTotal (VT) (see, e.g., Gaurav Sood, virustotal: RClient for the virustotal API, 2017, R package version 0.2.1) as themain source of malicious JS samples. We required a VT score (VTS) of atleast three which was empirically shown to be reasonably accurate. Ourmalicious and benign URL data was collected from the use of static anddynamic URL filters and analyzers from an industry cybersecurity companyover Internet traffic as well as external data sources (e.g., VT). Forbinary JS malware classification, we used a 450 k-600 k-600 k TTV splitwith 70:30, 96:4, and 96:4 benign to malicious ratios, respectively.Substantial benign samples are included to accurately measureperformance under strict false-positive rate (FPR) requirements. FPRs of≤0.1% are common in the industrial cybersecurity setting because of theexorbitant costs of FPs (see, e.g., This site produced andwww.byte-productions.com maintained by Byte Productions, The cost ofmalware containment, January 2015). For building multiclass malwarefamily tagging classifiers, we isolated nine distinct malware familieswith 10 k-1 k-1 k TTV samples per family. Equal parts benign data wereadded to form our multiclass training dataset. To generate OOD samples,we scrambled the order of tokens in benign scripts uniformly. For URLs,we used a 14M-2M-2M TTV split with 50:50 class ratios. We also collecteda separate 2M, 50:50 test set one year after the initial collection totest recency bias.

Our JS and URL classifier architectures, illustrated in (B) and (C) ofFIG. 6, build upon various prior work in NLP (see, e.g., Xiang Zhang,Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun, Character-level convolutional networks fortext classification, In Proceedings of the 28th International Conferenceon Neural Information Processing Systems—Volume 1, NIPS 2015, pages649-657, Cambridge, Mass., USA, 2015, MIT Press; Yoon Kim, Convolutionalneural networks for sentence classification, In Proceedings of the 2014Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP2014, Oct. 25-29, 2014, Doha, Qatar, A meeting of SIGDAT, a SpecialInterest Group of the ACL, pages 1746-1751, 2014; Michele Tufano, CodyWatson, Gabriele Bavota, Massimiliano Di Penta, Martin White, and DenysPoshyvanyk, Deep learning similarities from different representations ofsource code, In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference onMining Software Repositories, M S R 2018, pages 542-553, New York, N.Y.,USA, 2018, Association for Computing Machinery; Jack W. Stokes, RakshitAgrawal, Geoff McDonald, and Matthew J. Hausknecht, Scriptnet: Neuralstatic analysis for malicious javascript detection, In 2019 IEEEMilitary Communications Conference, MILCOM 2019, Norfolk, Va., USA, Nov.12-14, 2019, pages 1-8, IEEE, 2019; Rie Johnson and Tong Zhang,Semi-supervised convolutional neural networks for text categorizationvia region embedding, In C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, D. D. Lee, M.Sugiyama, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural InformationProcessing Systems 28, pages 919-927, Curran Associates, Inc., 2015; RieJohnson and Tong Zhang, Effective use of word order for textcategorization with convolutional neural networks, In Proceedings of the2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association forComputational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 103-112,Denver, Colo., May-June 2015, Association for Computational Linguistics;Yao Wang, Wan-dong Cai, and Peng-cheng Wei, A deep learning approach fordetecting malicious javascript code, Sec. and Commun. Netw.,9(11):1520-1534, July 2016; and Hung Le, Quang Pham, Doyen Sahoo, andSteven C. H. Hoi, Urinet: Learning a URL representation with deeplearning for malicious URL detection, 2018). All inputs are representedat two levels of abstraction: streams of characters (chars) and tokens.All URLs are padded to a fixed, maximal size while JS files aredynamically padded per batch. For token-level representations, (B) usesa single channel vocabulary of learned token embedded vectors chosenbased on frequency. For (C), we include a char-by-word channel similarto Hung Le, Quang Pham, Doyen Sahoo, and Steven C. H. Hoi, Urinet:Learning a URL representation with deep learning for malicious URLdetection, 2018. We additionally use an independently trained HiddenMarkov Model to produce randomness scores for each token which scales alearned embedded vector to produce a third randomness channel. Whenusing IUPG, for JS, each {right arrow over (p)}∈

with a fixed size. We designated one prototype per family for multiclassmodels while binary models have four prototypes designated for themalicious JS class—chosen empirically. For URLs, we experiment with all{right arrow over (p)} both defined as a member of

and with a basis set of 100 malicious URLs. Empirically chosen, four and100 prototypes are designated for the malicious URL class, respectively.

Classification Performance

We explore classification performance on our various datasets withdifferent combinations of training and testing with noise. When traininga CCE counterpart with synthesized noise, we augment a dedicated noiseclass. For multiclass models, we define an FP as an off-target samplebeing classified as any target class. We used a single confidencethreshold for all target classes. If surpassed, the maximum confidencetarget class is predicted. When testing without noise in Table 2, themaximum confidence target class is predicted always. Note also that inall Tables except Table 2 of FIG. 7B, decision thresholds are configuredto obey a maximum FPR. Results are presented over five trials withvarying random seeds where applicable. We find a reliably stable ordecreased false-negative rate (FNR), error percentage and variationacross Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 as further described below.

FIG. 7A illustrates Table 1 that includes a malicious JS classificationtest set μ±SEM FNR over all non-benign classes. For multiclass models,the low-shot training dataset consisted of 10 randomly selected samplesper non-benign class; for binary models, 1000 randomly selected malwaresamples.

FIG. 7B illustrates Table 2 that includes an image classificationno-noise test set μ±SEM error percentages.

FIG. 7C illustrates Table 3 that includes an image classification testset μ±SEM error percentages when the test set contains Gaussian noiseimages and models are trained without noise. Decision thresholds areconfigured to obey a maximum FPR.

FIG. 7D illustrates Table 4 that includes a malicious URL classificationtest set FNR. t signifies a basis set was used to define all {rightarrow over (p)}. Decision thresholds are configured to obey a maximumFPR.

FIG. 7E illustrates Table 5 that includes a detection with 0.005% testset FPR configured thresholds organized by VTS.

Note that Table 3 can also be interpreted as investigating OOD attacksusceptibility given that models are trained without noise and thentasked with classifying a test set that includes noise. In Table 4, wesee IUPG retains more of its performance in the presence ofdistributional shift over a period of one year compared to CCE. Fittingwith IUPG's central hypothesis, the noise-resistant features of the IUPGnetwork are naturally more robust to distributional shifts in the benignclass. Prototype definition strategies appear to affect performance.Clusters of malicious URLs are numerous and diverse. Intuitively, wewould see a benefit upon defining a large number of prototypes with abasis set.

As an additional investigation of our central hypothesis, we trained asingleton IUPG model (e.g., FIG. 6 (B)) and a larger stacked ensemble ofCCE networks for JS classification such that the test set FNR of theensemble was lower than the IUPG model at the same FPR. We amassed a newcollection of >5M JS samples taken from top-ranked popular websites.With thresholded test set FPR ≤0.005%, we cross-referenced alldetections from both models on this dataset with VT (see, e.g., GauravSood, virustotal: R Client for the virustotal API, 2017, R packageversion 0.2.1). A high VTS indicates a strong consensus of maliciousnessamong a large array of industry cybersecurity service providers. The VTSof the detections of both models are displayed in Table 5. Importantly,we see a significant shift toward a higher VT consensus on IUPGdetections despite an opposite performance gap on the test split. Thisis important to highlight due to the prevalence of constructing TTVsplits from a similar distribution but deploying models in more complexenvironments.

Out-Of-Distribution (OOD) Attack Simulations

In addition to the exploration in Table 3, we explored the tendency ofIUPG and its CCE counterpart to produce false positive (FP) responses onOOD inputs at decision thresholds that are representative of confidencelevels of in-distribution data. We are thus peering into the differingtendency of the models to output similar confidence levels on OODsamples as in-distribution samples. The results of our analysis aredisplayed in FIG. 8 as further described below.

FIG. 8 illustrates OOD attack simulation results. The FPR was measuredover OOD test sets with decision thresholds configured based on the75^(th)-95^(th) percentiles of all confidence scores produced on targetclass test data. (A) Image classification models trained without noiseover a Gaussian OOD test set. (B) Image classification models trainedwithout noise over a random stroke OOD test set. (C) Imageclassification models trained with Gaussian noise over a random strokeOOD test set. (D) Binary JS classifiers over an OOD test set ofrandomized benign JS.

We find smaller false positive rates (FPRs) with IUPG by a large marginwhen imposing decision thresholds representative of typical confidencelevels on target class test data. A lower tendency to produce FPs on OODcontent allows using looser decision thresholds in real-world systemsleading to a higher recall. This result helps to corroborate thewidening classification performance gap at stricter FPR requirements assimilarly described above.

Append Attack Simulations

We explored the vulnerability to append attacks of our JS malwareclassifiers. The results of our simulation are displayed in Table 6 asfurther described below. For each epoch, we also tried dynamicallymodifying all non-benign classes such that 33% of all its members areappended with a random benign fragment in the same TTV split. Fragmentsare given random sizes between 1000 and 5000 chars.

FIGS. 12A-C provide various examples of append attacks that can evadedetection by existing malware detection solutions. FIGS. 12A and 12Billustrate why signature or hash matching is generally not sufficientfor effective malware detection, and why advanced ML and DL modelsshould also be deployed to protect against “patient zero” malware (e.g.,malicious scripts in these examples). Both are examples of the samemalicious campaign, which is hard to catch as it generates many uniquescripts and it uses different obfuscation techniques for the injectedpiece. In fact, while the hash/SHA256 of the example shown in FIG. 12B(i.e., cf9ac8b038e4a6df1c827dc31420818ad5809fceb7b41ef96cedd956a761afcd)was already known to VirtusTotal as of this writing, the hash/SHA256 ofthe example shown in FIG. 12A (i.e.,a248259f353533b31c791f79580f5a98a763fee585657b15013d1bb459734ba8) wasnew, that is, previously undetected. Similar examples can be shown formalware injection with added white spaces and paddings that attempt tofool existing ML classifiers.

In addition to redirectors and droppers, the disclosed IUPG framework isalso effective and efficient in detecting JavaScript (JS) malware, suchas phishing kits, clickjacking campaigns, malvertising libraries, aswell as still remaining exploit kits. For example, a similar script fromFIG. 12C (e.g., showing a malware script sample of obfuscated phishingJavaScript in HTML that generates a fake Facebook login page) was foundon over 60 websites, such as regalosyconcurso2021.blogspot.{al, am, bg,jp, . . . , com, co.uk}. Note that the script is using heavy obfuscationtechniques, but nevertheless can be accurately detected by anIUPG-trained model using the disclosed techniques as described herein.

FIG. 9 illustrates Table 6 that includes append attack simulationresults. In each cell is the percentage of malware in which the modelproduces a malicious verdict on the original but a benign verdict uponappending a fragment of benign data of a given size in chars. Twentyrandom fragments are tested per malware. Decision thresholds areconfigured to obey a maximum of 0.1% FPR on the test set. Adversarialtraining is denoted by ‡.

We found significant margins between the vulnerability of IUPG and itsCCE counterpart with and without adversarial training. Critically, notethe failure of the binary CCE^(‡) model to protect against appendattacks beyond the fragment sizes used during training. Note that thebinary dataset contains hundreds of malware families with one genericlabel thus represents a significantly harder problem compared tomulticlass classification. Our multiclass classes are far less variable,and thus, extracted features are free to be more specific—leading toless susceptibility to activation on noisy benign input. Additionally,note that the blackbox append attack can take the form of maliciousinjections into large benign files. Over a dataset of real-worldmalicious JS injections, we discovered the IUPG network to boost thenumber of detections from 76 to 2,259 over the aforementioned largerensemble as discussed above in the Classification Performance section.This pragmatic result corroborates with the results in Table 6.

Fast-Gradient Sign Method (FGSM) Attacks

To demonstrate the potential to combine IUPG with existing adversarialtraining techniques, we combined the image classifiers with theFast-Gradient Sign Method (FGSM) (see, e.g., Ian J. Goodfellow, JonathonShlens, and Christian Szegedy, Explaining and Harnessing AdversarialExamples, arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1412.6572, December 2014) trainingprocedure. We discovered IUPG yields significantly more resistance toFGSM attacks compared to its CCE counterpart both with and without FGSMadversarial training. This is visualized in FIGS. 10A-B.

FIGS. 10A-10B illustrate the accuracy over correctly classified testimages versus the scaling factor of FGSM perturbations. FIG. 10Aillustrates the results using standard training. FIG. 10B illustratesthe results when these models are trained with the above-described FGSMtraining procedure.

Specifically, as shown in FIG. 10B, we use common FGSM trainingparameters of α=0.9, ϵ=0.25 on MNIST and α=0.5, ϵ=0.05 on Fashion MNIST.Fitting in with our core hypothesis, IUPG networks should be lesssensitive to low-level perturbations by design. This is especially dueto IUPG's prototyping mechanism which encourages exclusive sensitivityto high-level information shared among a subset of data. Thus, both FIG.10B and Table 6 demonstrate the superiority of using IUPG combined withspecial adversarial training compared to using either in isolation. Assuch, combining strengths is generally recommended for the greatestsuccess in various real-world environments, such as malwareclassification and similar applications of the disclosed IUPGtechniques.

Accordingly, we have presented the IUPG learning framework anddemonstrated its impact on classification networks compared to CCE. Ourcore hypothesis is a boosted capacity to properly handle OOD content asprovided by IUPG's inherent noise resistance and increased featurespecificity. This feature logically connects all of the supportiveresults presented in this work: (1) increased or stable classificationperformance; (2) decreased performance loss due to recency bias; (3)decreased FPs on OOD noise; and (4) decreased vulnerability to somenoise-based attacks. Properly handling OOD content is generallyimportant for models in real-world environments, such as malwareclassification where benignness cannot be reasonably captured with afinite sample.

As described above, the unique benefits of IUPG are particularly usefulto malware classification efforts. In that context, append attacks canlead to risky false-negatives while OOD failures can lead to costlyfalse-positives that can be handled or mitigated using theabove-described IUPG techniques. For example, IUPG is shown to increaseresistance to several attack varieties as well as decrease FP responseson OOD inputs as described above. As such, IUPG can increase theefficiency and security of machine learning (ML) systems used for suchML systems, such as for malware classification and detection using asecurity platform as described herein. Blackbox attack defense isparticularly relevant for attacks leveraged on proprietary systems whereattackers can acquire benign data but not model details. The security ofdeep learning and ML in general is generally important to its adoptionand effectiveness especially in safety-critical environments. Ofparticular relevance are cybersecurity service providers who maydirectly benefit from adopting IUPG in ways, such as increasing thesuccessful detection of malware, increasing robustness to adversaries,increasing customer trust, and furthering the common ethical mission ofsecuring the digital world.

An Example JavaScript (JS) Data Collection Used for Experiments

Benign JS was collected from popular websites with filters. Inparticular we used the top 1M domains from Tranco list (e.g., publiclyavailable at https://tranco-list.eu/), which aggregates and cleansseveral popular lists, and as such, was shown by researchers to be amore accurate and clean option (see, e.g., V. L. Pochat, T. van Goethem,and W. Joosen, Rigging research results by manipulating top websitesrankings, CoRR, abs/1806.01156, 2018, available athttp://arxiv.org/abs/1806.01156). In addition to Tranco's filtering, weignored five samples flagged by state-of-the-art commercial URLfiltering services. We leveraged VirusTotal (VT) (see, e.g., G. Sood,virustotal: R Client for the virustotal API, 2017, URLhttps://www.virustotal.com. R package version 0.2.1) as the main sourceof malicious JS samples. Problematically, VT's malicious file feedcontains mostly HTML files rather than JS scripts. To accuratelypinpoint the malicious scripts inside an HTML file, we extracted inlinesnippets and externally referenced scripts from VT's feed andresubmitted them to be confirmed by VT again. We required at least threeVT vendor hits which was empirically shown to be reasonably accurate.The data collection was performed during 2014-2020. The most populartokens among tags were “ExpKit,” “Trojan,” “Virus,” “JS.Agent,” andHTML/Phishing.” To complement this malware data, we added maliciousexploit kits kindly provided to us by a major network and enterprisesecurity company. To procure multiclass data for the malware familytagging problem, we isolated nine subsets of the malicious data. Thesesubsets were determined through clustering the malware data with themethod as further described below in the Usage of K-Means++ for IUPGsection. These clusters generally include malware families and someobfuscation techniques whose outputs have a high degree of visualsimilarity. Each malware cluster will now be described below.

1. Angler Exploit Kit samples which aim to deliver malicious payloadsover web browsers without any interaction from the victim (see, e.g., I.Nikolaev, M. Grill, and V. Valeros. Exploit kit website detection usinghttp proxy logs, In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference onNetwork, Communication and Computing, ICNCC 2016, page 120-125, NewYork, N.Y., USA, 2016, Association for Computing Machinery, ISBN9781450347938, doi: 10.1145/3033288.3033354. available athttps://doi.org/10.1145/132 3033288.3033354; B. Duncan. Understandingangler exploit kit—part 1: Exploit kit fundamentals, June 2016, URLhttps://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/unit42-understanding-anglerexploit-kit-part-1-exploit-kit-fundamentals/;F. Howard. A closer look at the angler-exploit kit, July 2019, availableathttps://news.sophos.com/en-us/2015/07/21/a-closer-look-at-the-angler-exploit-kit/;and A. Zaharia. The ultimate guide to angler exploit kit fornon-technical people [updated], February 2017, URLhttps://heimdalsecurity.com/blog/ultimate-guide-angler-exploitkit-non-technical-people/). Possess both high token-level and char-levelrandomness.

2. “Hea2p” style obfuscation which is often associated with phishingkits (see, e.g., O. Starov, Y. Zhou, and J. Wang, Detecting maliciouscampaigns in obfuscated javascript with scalable behavioral analysis,pages 218-223, May 2019, doi: 10.1109/SPW.2019.00048). Possess hightoken-level similarity but much char-level randomness.

3. Clickjackers which focus on producing artificial “like” buttonpresses on social media websites (see id.). Possess high token-levelsimilarity but much char-level randomness. Possess both high token-leveland char-level randomness.

4. “Lololo” style obfuscation which produces outputs with low tokenstructure similarity but contains recognizable char-level patterns.

5. Nemucod which is a family of threats that attempt to download andinstall other malware onto devices including ransomware (see, e.g.,Microsoft. Js/nemucod, March 2015. URLhttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/wdsi/threats/malware-encyclopedia-description?Name=JS%2FNemucod). Possess both high token-level and char-level randomness.

6. A variety of unnamed JS packers which produces outputs with both hightoken-level and char-level randomness given that the packed code canexist anywhere in the original script.

7. A variety of unnamed JS Trojans (see, e.g., C. E. Landwehr, A. R.Bull, J. P. McDermott, and W. S. Choi, A taxonomy of computer programsecurity flaws, ACM Comput. Surv., 26(3):211-254, September 1994, ISSN0360-0300. doi:10.1145/185403.185412, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/185403.185412) which possess high token-levelsimilarity but much char-level randomness.

8. Another variety of unnamed JS Trojans which possess high token-levelsimilarity but much char-level randomness (see id.).

9. A variety of unnamed encryption techniques which produce outputs withhigh token-level similarity but much char-level randomness.

FIG. 11 is an example t-SNE visualization of the U vector space inaccordance with some embodiments. Specifically, the visualization shownin FIG. 11 is a real-world example of the output vector space for amulticlass JS malware family classifier post-training. The network wastrained to recognize nine different JS malware families listed in thelegend with the off-target benign class. Each of the nine target malwarefamily classes is grouped tightly around a single assigned prototypewhile benign data is mapped more arbitrarily toward the center. Thisvisualization was produced by using t-SNE (see, e.g., van der Maaten &Hinton, G. E. (2008), Visualizing High-Dimensional Data Using t-SNE,Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9 (November), pages 2579-2605) onthe mapped representations of validation data and the prototypes in theoutput vector space.

Usage of K-Means++ for IUPG

K-means++ (see, e.g., D. Arthur and S. Vassilvitskii, K-means++: Theadvantages of careful seeding, In Proceedings of the Eighteenth AnnualACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2007, pages 1027-1035,USA, 2007, Society for Industrial and AppliedMathematics, ISBN9780898716245) was leveraged for our IUPG experiments. Recall thatclustering is used to discover intelligent IUPG prototypeinitializations. We used K-means++ (see id.) for clustering both theMNIST (see, e.g., Y. LeCun and C. Cortes, MNIST database of handwrittendigits, 2010, URL http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist/) and malicious JSdatasets within this work.

MNIST Clustering

We first grouped each digit class together within the training data andclustered each subgroup individually. On each digit subgroup, we usedPrincipal Component Analysis (PCA) (see, e.g., I. Jolliffe andSpringer-Verlag, Principal Component Analysis, Springer Series inStatistics, Springer, 2002, ISBN 9780387954424, URLhttps://books.google.com/books?id=_olByCrhjwIC) to project each imageonto the top 75 principle component vectors. We performed K-means++clustering with K=1 across these compressed representations. We usedEuclidean distance for clustering. We then computed the Euclideandistance of the resulting cluster center to all images within the digitsubgroup. The training image which was closest to the cluster center ischosen as the prototype initialization. The chosen image pixels wereperturbed slightly with Gaussian noise to avoid potential overfitting.

Malicious JS Clustering

Since all benign data is assigned the off-target label, we first grouped54 all malicious samples together. For multiclass models, we groupedmalware families together and clustered each one individually. Forbinary models, we clustered all malware samples at the same time. Wefurther isolated only the token sequence representations, {right arrowover (x)}_(t) of each malicious sample, and discarded the char sequencerepresentations, {right arrow over (x)}_(c). We vectorized each sequenceof token indices by computing the Term Frequency Inverse DocumentFrequency (TF-IDF) (see, e.g., C. Sammut and G. I. Webb, editors,TF-IDF, pages 986-987, Springer US, Boston, Mass., 2010, ISBN978-0-387-30164-8, doi:10.1007/978-0-387-30164-8_832, available athttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30164-8_832) vectors over the tokenvocabulary, v_(t). We performed K-means++ on these TF-IDF vectorrepresentations of each malicious sample with K=ρ for binary models andK=1 for multiclass models. We used Euclidean distance for clustering. Wethen computed the Euclidean distance of the resulting cluster center(s)to all malware samples in the group. The training malware sample whichwas closest to a cluster center was chosen as a prototypeinitialization. After initialization of all the embedded vectors, eachprototype, (Pc, Pt), was initialized as the corresponding (X{circumflexover ( )}_(c);X{circumflex over ( )}_(t)) from the chosen malwaresamples. Each (P_(c), P_(t)) was perturbed slightly with Gaussian noiseto avoid potential overfitting.

Example IUPG Framework for Malware JavaScript Classification

FIG. 13 illustrates an IPUG framework for malware JavaScriptclassification in accordance with some embodiments. A JavaScriptdocument 1302 is tokenized using OpenNMT Tokenizer 1304 (e.g., an opensource tokenizer available at https://github.com/OpenNMT/Tokenizer) togenerate Chars (character tokens) 1306 encoded as Char Encoding 1310 andTokens 1308 encoded as Token Encoding 1312. Tokenization is followed byan ensemble of CNN feature extractors including a CCE CNN featureextractor 1314 and an IUPG CNN feature extractor 1316 (e.g., implementedas similarly described above using the disclosed IUPG techniques thatcan be applied to the JS malware classification context) followed by anXGB classifier 1318 to generate a JS malware classification verdict asshown at 1320 based on the ensemble of CNN feature extractors using theabove-described combination of CCE CNN and IUPG CNN classificationtechniques to facilitate a more effective and efficient JS malwaredetection solution (e.g., that is more robust to potential adversarialevasion techniques, such as append attacks as similarly describedabove).

The disclosed IUPG framework and techniques can similarly be applied toURL classification, such as for a URL filtering security solution,and/or other computer/network security classifications/detections forvarious security solutions as will now be apparent to one of ordinaryskill in the art.

Example process embodiments for performing the disclosed IUPG techniqueswill now be further described below.

Example Process Embodiments for Using Innocent Until Proven GuiltyModels for Malware Classification

FIG. 14 is an example of a process for performing static analysis ofsamples using innocent until proven guilty (IUPG) models for malwareclassification in accordance with some embodiments. In some embodiments,process 1400 is performed by security platform 122, and in particular byanalyzer and detector 154. For example, analyzer and detector 154 can beimplemented using a script (or set of scripts) authored in anappropriate scripting language (e.g., Python). In some embodiments,process 1400 is performed by data appliance 102, and in particular bythreat engine 244. For example, threat engine 244 can be implementedusing a script (or set of scripts) authored in an appropriate scriptinglanguage (e.g., Python). In some embodiments, process 1400 can also beperformed on an endpoint, such as client device 110 (e.g., by anendpoint protection application executing on client device 110). In someembodiments, process 1400 can also be performed by a cloud-basedsecurity service, such as using security platform 122 as furtherdescribed below.

Process 1400 begins at 1402 when a set comprising one or more IUPGmodels for security analysis are stored on a network device. Forexample, the IUPG models, such as for JS code, HTML, code, and/or otherprogramming/scripting languages, as well as other structured text suchas URLs or unstructured content such as images can be generated (e.g.,and/or periodically updated/replaced) based on training and validationdata using the above-described techniques.

At 1404, a static analysis of content associated with a sample receivedat the network device is performed using at least one stored IUPGclassification model. As one example of the processing performed at1404, such as for data appliance 102 and/or client device 110, for agiven session, an associated protocol decoder can call or otherwise makeuse of an appropriate file-specific decoder when the start of a file isdetected by the protocol decoder. As explained above, the file type isdetermined (e.g., by decoder 402) and associated with the session. Inanother example implementation, the file can be sent to a cloud-basedsecurity service (e.g., a commercially available cloud-based securityservice, such as the WildFire™ cloud-based malware analysis environmentthat is a commercially available cloud security service provided by PaloAlto Networks, Inc., which includes automated security analysis ofmalware samples as well as security expert analysis, or a similarsolution provided by another vendor can be utilized).

At 1406, whether the sample is malicious based at least in part on thestatic analysis of the content associated with the received sample isdetermined. In an example implementation, the appropriate IUPG model(e.g., applying an IUPG model for JS code for a JS sample, applying anIUPG model for HTML, code for an HTML, sample, etc.) is used todetermine a class verdict for the file as malicious or benign (i.e.,comparing the final value obtained using the IUPG model in combinationwith one or other classification models such as a CCE CNN model trainedfor the appropriate content, such as similarly described above).

At 1408, in response to determining that the sample is malicious, anaction based on a security policy is performed. Specifically, an actionis taken in response to the determination made at 1406. One example of aresponsive action, such as for data appliance 102 and/or client device110, is terminating the session. Another example of a responsive action,such as for data appliance 102 and/or client device 110, is allowing thesession to continue, but preventing the file from being accessed and/ortransmitted (and instead, being placed in a quarantine area). As yetanother example of a responsive action, such as for security platform122, is sending the determination that the sample is malicious to thesubscriber that submitted the sample for analysis (e.g., data appliance102 and/or client device 110) to inform that subscriber that the samplewas determined to be malicious so that the subscriber can perform aresponse based on a locally configured security policy. In variousembodiments, security platform 122, appliance 102, and/or client device110 is configured to share its verdicts (whether benign verdicts,malicious verdicts, or both) with one or more other devices/platforms(e.g., security platform 122, appliance 102, and/or client device 110,etc.). As an example, when security platform 122 completes itsindependent analysis of the sample, it can use the verdict reported byappliance 102 for a variety of purposes, including assessing theperformance of the model that formed the verdict.

In an example embodiment, security platform 122 is configured to targeta specific false positive rate (e.g., 0.01%) when generating models foruse by appliances such as data appliance 102. Accordingly, in some cases(e.g., one out of every one thousand files), data appliance 102 mayincorrectly determine that a benign file is malicious when performinginline analysis using a model in accordance with techniques describedherein. In such a scenario, if security platform 122 subsequentlydetermines that the file is in fact benign, it can be added to awhitelist so that it is not subsequently flagged as being malicious(e.g., by another appliance).

Example Process Embodiments for Building Adversary and False PositiveResistant Deep Learning Models for Security Solutions

FIG. 15 is an example of a process for generating innocent until provenguilty (IUPG) models for malware classification in accordance with someembodiments. Specifically, an example process for generating an InnocentUntil Proven Guilty (IUPG) model(s) for malware classification isdepicted in FIG. 15. In various embodiments, process 15 is performed bysecurity platform 122 (e.g., using model builder 152).

Process 1500 begins at 1502 when training data (e.g., the training dataincludes a set of files for the appropriate training context, such as JSfiles, HTML files, URLs, etc.) for training an Innocent Until ProvenGuilty (IUPG) model for classifying malicious content and benign contentbased on a static analysis is received.

At 1504, extract a set of tokens from the set of input files to generatea character encoding and a token encoding. As described above, varioustechniques are disclosed for tokenizing content based on a set ofcharacters and other tokens extracted from the set of input files, suchas JS files.

At 1506, an IUPG CNN feature extractor is generated. As similarlydescribed above, additional feature vectors based on differentlevels/layers of abstraction can also be generated based on differentrepresentations to be extracted from the set of input files.

At 1508, ensemble the IUPG CNN feature extractor with one or more otherCNN-based feature extractors (e.g., a CCE CNN feature extractor oranother form of a CNN-based feature extractor) is performed forclassifying malicious content and benign content based on the staticanalysis of the sample. In one embodiment, following the ensemble ofIUPG-based and CCE-based CNN feature extractors, an XGB classifier isgenerated, such as for classifying malicious JS content and benign JScontent based on the static analysis of the sample as similarlydescribed.

As also similarly described above, various IUPG models for one or moreprogramming/scripting languages or other content can be built using opensource or other tools, and as applicable, performing hyperparametertuning as described above, which can, for example, be tuned forefficiently performing these IUPG models for static analysis-basedclassification of samples to be performed/executed on various computingenvironments that may have different computing resources (e.g., memoryresources, processor/CPU resources, etc. available for processing theseIUPG models). Also, IUPG models (e.g., generated by model builder 152using process 1500) can be sent (e.g., as part of a subscriptionservice) to data appliance 102, client device 110, and/or otherapplicable recipients (e.g., data appliances 136 and 148, etc.).

In various embodiments, model builder 152 generates IUPG models (e.g.,IUPG models for one or more types of source code, that is, differentprogramming/scripting languages, such as JS, HTML, etc., and/or othercontent as described above) on a daily or other applicable/periodicbasis. By performing process 1500 or otherwise periodically generatingmodels, security platform 122 and/or cloud-based security services canhelp ensure that the various security classification models detect themost current types of malware threats (e.g., those most recentlydeployed by nefarious individuals).

Although the foregoing embodiments have been described in some detailfor purposes of clarity of understanding, the invention is not limitedto the details provided. There are many alternative ways of implementingthe invention. The disclosed embodiments are illustrative and notrestrictive.

What is claimed is:
 1. A system, comprising: a processor configured to:store on a networked device a set comprising one or more innocent untilproven guilty (IUPG) models for static analysis of a sample; perform astatic analysis of content associated with the sample, whereinperforming the static analysis of the content includes using at leastone stored IUPG model; and determine that the sample is malicious basedat least in part on the static analysis of the content associated withthe sample, and in response to determining that the sample is malicious,perform an action based on a security policy; and a memory coupled tothe processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions.2. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured toenumerate source code associated with the sample.
 3. The system of claim1, wherein the processor is configured to enumerate source codeassociated with the sample into a set of characters.
 4. The system ofclaim 1, wherein the processor is configured to enumerate source codeassociated with the sample into a set of characters and a set of tokens.5. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured toenumerate source code associated with the sample into a set ofcharacters, a set of tokens, and an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST).
 6. Thesystem of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured todetermine a file type associated with the sample.
 7. The system of claim1, wherein the processor is configured to determine a file typeassociated with the sample and to select, from the set of one or moreIUPG models, based on the determined file type associated with the file.8. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured toreceive at least one updated classification model.
 9. The system ofclaim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive anotherIUPG model for another programming language.
 10. The system of claim 1,wherein the processor is further configured to perform the staticanalysis of the sample using the IUPG model and another type ofCNN-based classifier.
 11. A method, comprising: storing a set comprisingone or more innocent until proven guilty (IUPG) models for staticanalysis of a sample; performing a static analysis of content associatedwith the sample, wherein performing the static analysis of the modelincludes using at least one stored IUPG model; and determining that thesample is malicious based at least in part on the static analysis of thecontent associated with the sample, and in response to determining thatthe sample is malicious, performing an action based on a securitypolicy.
 12. The method of claim 11, further comprising: enumeratingsource code associated with the sample.
 13. The method of claim 11,further comprising: enumerating source code associated with the sampleinto a set of characters.
 14. The method of claim 11, furthercomprising: enumerating source code associated with the sample into aset of characters and a set of tokens.
 15. The method of claim 11,further comprising: determining a file type associated with the sample.16. The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining a file typeassociated with the sample; and selecting, from the set of one or moreIUPG models, based on the determined file type associated with the file.17. The method of claim 11, further comprising: receiving at least oneupdated IUPG model.
 18. The method of claim 11, further comprising:receiving another IUPG model for another programming language.
 19. Themethod of claim 11, further comprising: performing the static analysisof the sample using the IUPG model and another type of CNN-basedclassifier.
 20. A computer program product embodied in a tangiblecomputer readable storage medium and comprising computer instructionsfor: storing a set comprising one or more innocent until proven guilty(IUPG) models for static analysis of a sample; performing a staticanalysis of content associated with the sample, wherein performing thestatic analysis of the content includes using at least one stored IUPGmodel; and determining that the sample is malicious based at least inpart on the static analysis of the content associated with the sample,and in response to determining that the sample is malicious, performingan action based on a security policy.